Data point (which Chris brought up already, I think?): We tried this* and got a lot of negative feedback. Optionals are unwrapped too often for people to be comfortable writing "if let name? = optionalCondition”.
Yes, I even implemented this and it was in the compiler for awhile, then later ripped it back out. You can find the history in git. I would guess that this all happened in ~March 2015.
-Chris
···
On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Jordan Rose via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org> wrote:
It may be more uniform and even more pedantically correct, but our users hated it.
Jordan
* The actual thing we tried only allowed patterns that began with 'let', but that's close enough.
On Feb 3, 2016, at 15:36, Brent Royal-Gordon via swift-evolution <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
This is a continuation of and alternative proposal to "The bind thread", which seems to have petered out without consensus.
Currently there are three forms of `if` statement (and `guard` and `while`, but for simplicity I'll just say `if` throughout this discussion):
if booleanCondition
if let name = optionalCondition
if case pattern = expressionThe boolean condition form is fine, but there are flaws in the other two. `if let` is unprincipled and doesn't really say what it does; `if case` is bulky and rarely used.*
One very interesting thing about `if case`, too, is that it can actually do optional unwrapping:
if case let name? = optionalCondition
This avoids the problems with `if let`—it's principled (it comes from a larger language feature) and it explicitly says it's handling optionality—but it still runs up against `if case`'s rarity and wordiness.
So what I suggest is that we drop the `if let` form entirely and then drop the `case` keyword from `if case`. Pattern-matching conditions can still be distinguished from boolean conditions because boolean conditions can't contain an `=` operator. This, there would now only be two forms of if:
if booleanCondition
if pattern = expressionAnd the current `if let` is handled elegantly and clearly by existing pattern-matching shorthand, with only one additional character needed:
if let name? = optionalCondition
I see two complications with this.
The first is that, naively, `if let foo = bar` would still be valid, but would have different and vacuous behavior, since the pattern cannot fail to match. The compiler should probably emit an error or at least a warning when this happens.
The second is our other weird use of the `case` keyword, `for case`, which is now an orphan in the language. I see several ways this could be handled:
1. Drop the `for case` functionality entirely; if you want that behavior, use a pattern-matching `if`.
2. Replace the loop variable slot in the `for` statement with a pattern. This would force you to put `let` on all simple `for` statements.
3. Try to automatically distinguish between simple variables/tuples and patterns in this slot. What could possibly go wrong?
4. Require an equals sign before the `in`, like `for let foo? = in optionalFoos`. Looks a little gross, but it's unambiguous.
5. Replace `for case` with `for if`, like `for if let foo? in optionalFoos`. This helps flag the unusual conditional behavior of this form of `for`.
6. Just keep `for case` and don't worry about the fact that it's not parallel to the other statements anymore.Thoughts on any of this?
* `if case` also has the problem that the `=` isn't appropriate unless you happen to bind some of the data matched by the pattern, but I don't know how to address that. A prior version of this proposal suggested saying `:=` instead of `=`, with the idea that `:=` could become a general pattern-matching operator, but the people I talked over this post with hated that.
--
Brent Royal-Gordon
Architechies_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution